Blog Stats

Monthly Archives: March 2009

The language in the GIVE/SERVE package that proposed a study on mandatory service requirements for US citizens, was dropped from the final bill, but it has come back in a stand-alone bill to establish the “Congressional Commission on Civic Service.”

To establish the Congressional Commission on Civic Service to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:

(1) The social fabric of the United States is stronger if individuals in the United States are committed to protecting and serving our Nation by utilizing national service and volunteerism to overcome our
civic challenges.

(2) A more engaged civic society will strengthen the Nation by bringing together people from diverse backgrounds and experiences to work on solutions to some of our Nation’s major challenges.

(3) Despite declines in civic health in the past 30 years, national service and volunteerism among the Nation’s youth are increasing, and existing national service and volunteer programs greatly enhance opportunities for youth to engage in civic activity.

(4) In addition to the benefits received by nonprofit organizations and society as a whole, volunteering and national service provide a variety of personal benefits and satisfaction and can lead to new paths of civic engagement, responsibility, and upward mobility.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.

There is established in the legislative branch a commission to be known as the ‘Congressional Commission on Civic Service’ (in this Act referred to as the ‘Commission’).

SEC. 4. DUTIES.

(a) General Purpose- The purpose of the Commission is to gather and analyze information in order to make recommendations to Congress to–

(1) improve the ability of individuals in the United States to serve others and, by doing so, to enhance our Nation and the global community;

(2) train leaders in public service organizations to better utilize individuals committed to national service and volunteerism as they manage human and fiscal resources;

(3) identify and offer solutions to the barriers that make it difficult for some individuals in the United States to volunteer or perform national service; and

(4) build on the foundation of service and volunteer opportunities that are currently available.
(b) Specific Topics- In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:
(1) The level of understanding about the current Federal, State, and local volunteer programs and opportunities for service among individuals in the United States.
(2) The issues that deter volunteerism and national service, particularly among young people, and how the identified issues can be overcome.
(3) Whether there is an appropriate role for Federal, State, and local governments in overcoming the issues that deter volunteerism and national service and, if appropriate, how to expand the relationships and partnerships between different levels of government in promoting volunteerism and national service.
(4) Whether existing databases are effective in matching community needs to would-be volunteers and service providers.

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young
people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

(7) The need for a public service academy, a 4-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders.

(8) The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for primary and secondary school students and by raising awareness of existing incentives.

(9) The effectiveness of establishing a training program on college campuses to recruit and educate college students for national service.

(10) The effect on United States diplomacy and foreign policy interests of expanding service opportunities abroad, such as the Peace Corps, and the degree of need and capacity abroad for an expansion.

(11) The constraints that service providers, nonprofit organizations, and State and local agencies face in utilizing federally funded volunteer programs, and how these constraints can be overcome.

(12) Whether current Federal volunteer programs are suited to address the special skills and needs of senior volunteers, and if not, how these programs can be improved such that the Federal government can effectively promote service among the ‘baby boomer’ generation.

Before you say, there is no way the depraved lunatics in power right now can constitutionally require young people to serve in one of their commie/pinko brigades, take a look at this.

…Obama might have a good argument that it is constitutional. How? Under the Second Amendment?

The amendment in question reads as follows:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

If Obama puts this under governors, or under some organizational leadership that can maintain the “militia” claim, he can make the argument that his security force is a “well-regulated militia,” that it is “necessary to the security of a free State,”
and that their rights to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This might be how Obama and Dead Fish Emmanuel plan to implement this “security force.” If so, their argument is elegantly simple. I will have to do more research on this, but it may be specifically allowed under the Bill of Rights in the Second Amendment.

If you remember, last July, Obama announced his plan to build a massive “civilian national security force”, claiming it would be just as well funded as the US military.

Unfortunately for America, Barack Obama’s security plan is already practiced.
Not in America but in Marxist regimes.
Gusano at Babalu grew up with a civilian national security force… in Cuba:

Basically, what Obama is talking about is creating a Committee for the Defense of Liberal Ideology and Political correctness funded by a half trillion taxpayer dollars. National Security for this crowd is not about stopping terrorists from killing our children. National Security means to teach our children to understand the terrorists and their motivations so that our children can learn how to live their lives submissively so as not to offend the sensitivities of the very sensitive America haters.

Their version of National Security is to force you to act for the common good of society and not in your own best interest. Since this goes against human nature, the half trillion dollar “Civilian National Security Force” will have to force Americans to change their nature and create a new citizen that is self sacrificing and collective in nature-an ant-like new man, like Che’s and Fidel’s new man.

This concept is eerily similar to the Castroite CDR block snitch network that I grew up with only better funded and more ideologically pure.

One thing is clear. Obama and Emanuel have their hearts set on some sort of mandatory civilian force. They haven’t even been too secretive about it, either. Unfortunately, the media hasn’t been interested in reporting the story.

The Oakland school board has voted to change the name of a small school to Barack Obama Academy, reportedly the first middle school in the country to adopt the name of the nation’s 44th president.

While Obama has been in office fewer than 100 days, the 35 students at the former Alternative Learning Community public school persuaded the board Tuesday to make what they said was a historic change.Several students prepared statements and then sat for hours Tuesday night waiting for their turn
“They sat there 3 1/2 hours before they were allowed to speak,” said their school principal, Toni McElroy. “They carried themselves Barack-like.”

They had teleprompters?

The students told the board the old name was too negative, district officials said. The students received a standing ovation at the meeting after the unanimous vote.”These are students that people have written off,” McElroy said. “They were able to see that if you really push and if you really are motivated and consistent that you can make a change.”

The point was that Obama was promising so many things that to pay for them he would eventually have to raise taxes on people making far less than $250,000. Look out, McCain warned — someday he’ll come after you.

And that is precisely what is happening:

The deficit issue could be one of the most, if not the most, consequential of Obama’s unkept campaign promises. Just how consequential was made clear last week in a little-noticed conference call featuring Budget Director Peter Orszag. Orszag was trying to explain to reporters how the Obama administration calculated its rather rosy forecasts for economic growth. Near the end of the call, he was asked whether deficits along the lines of those predicted by the Congressional Budget Office are sustainable.”

Orszag at first dodged the question, saying he was sure the final Obama budget will “reflect a fiscally sustainable path.” But the questioner persisted: Are those deficits sustainable? Relenting, Orszag said such deficits, in the range of five percent of the Gross Domestic Product, “would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable.”

The simple version of that is: If the Congressional Budget Office projections are correct, we’re headed for hell in a handbasket.

I asked McCain what might happen if Obama and Orszag get their way. First, the U.S. could have to print a lot of new money, “running the huge risk of inflation and returning to the situation of the 1970s, only far worse,” McCain said. The second option is to raise taxes.

Just this week, former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin conceded that Obama’s budget could present a “scary scenario” that would “raise deficits to unsustainable levels well after the economy recovers.” The solution, she wrote, is higher taxes, and not just for the richest of the rich.

Like this:

Reportedly in secret…a treaty is being hammered out that will allow governments “to search and seize material thought to be in breach in copyright”:

UPDATE:

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air looks into the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and concludes that there’s something going on, but few places want to report on it:

Conspiracy theory? Something is happening here, but what? Maybe our national media might take an interest in it at some point so we can find out exactly what the G-8 intends to do in the name of copyright enforcement. It might be nothing but spitballing at this point, but this kind of effort belongs in the sunlight, not in the dark.

I have contacted the White House for comment on this story, and I’ll report back in an update if and when they respond.